85326 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 234 / Thursday, December 7, 2023 / Notices 

F.2d at 1577 (quotation marks omitted). 

‘‘The court should also bear in mind the 

flexibility of the public interest inquiry: 

the court’s function is not to determine 

whether the resulting array of rights and 

liabilities is the one that will best serve 

society, but only to confirm that the 

resulting settlement is within the 

reaches of the public interest.’’ 

Microsoft, 56 F.3d at 1460 (quotation 

marks omitted); see also United States v. 

Deutsche Telekom AG, No. 19–2232 

(TJK), 2020 WL 1873555, at *7 (D.D.C. 

Apr. 14, 2020). More demanding 

requirements would ‘‘have enormous 

practical consequences for the 

government’s ability to negotiate future 

settlements,’’ contrary to congressional 

intent. Microsoft, 56 F.3d at 1456. ‘‘The 

Tunney Act was not intended to create 

a disincentive to the use of the consent 

decree.’’ Id. 

The United States’ predictions about 

the efficacy of the remedy are to be 

afforded deference by the Court. See, 

e.g., Microsoft, 56 F.3d at 1461 

(recognizing courts should give ‘‘due 

respect to the Justice Department’s . . . 

view of the nature of its case’’); United 

States v. Iron Mountain, Inc., 217 F. 

Supp. 3d 146, 152–53 (D.D.C. 2016) (‘‘In 

evaluating objections to settlement 

agreements under the Tunney Act, a 

court must be mindful that [t]he 

government need not prove that the 

settlements will perfectly remedy the 

alleged antitrust harms[;] it need only 

provide a factual basis for concluding 

that the settlements are reasonably 

adequate remedies for the alleged 

harms.’’ (internal citations omitted)); 

United States v. Republic Servs., Inc., 

723 F. Supp. 2d 157, 160 (D.D.C. 2010) 

(noting ‘‘the deferential review to which 

the government’s proposed remedy is 

accorded’’); United States v. ArcherDaniels-Midland Co., 272 F. Supp. 2d 1, 

6 (D.D.C. 2003) (‘‘A district court must 

accord due respect to the government’s 

prediction as to the effect of proposed 

remedies, its perception of the market 

structure, and its view of the nature of 

the case.’’). The ultimate question is 

whether ‘‘the remedies [obtained by the 

Final Judgment are] so inconsonant with 

the allegations charged as to fall outside 

of the ‘reaches of the public interest.’ ’’ 

Microsoft, 56 F.3d at 1461 (quoting W. 

Elec. Co., 900 F.2d at 309). 

Moreover, the Court’s role under the 

Tunney Act is limited to reviewing the 

remedy in relationship to the antitrust 

violations that the United States has 

alleged in its Complaint, and the 

Tunney Act does not authorize the 

Court to ‘‘construct [its] own 

hypothetical case and then evaluate the 

decree against that case.’’ Microsoft, 56 

F.3d at 1459; see also U.S. Airways, 38 

F. Supp. 3d at 75 (noting that the court 

must simply determine whether there is 

a factual foundation for the 

government’s decisions such that its 

conclusions regarding the proposed 

settlements are reasonable); InBev, 2009 

U.S. Dist. LEXIS 84787, at *20 (‘‘[T]he 

‘public interest’ is not to be measured by 

comparing the violations alleged in the 

complaint against those the court 

believes could have, or even should 

have, been alleged.’’). Because the 

‘‘court’s authority to review the decree 

depends entirely on the government’s 

exercising its prosecutorial discretion by 

bringing a case in the first place,’’ it 

follows that ‘‘the court is only 

authorized to review the decree itself,’’ 

and not to ‘‘effectively redraft the 

complaint’’ to inquire into other matters 

that the United States did not pursue. 

Microsoft, 56 F.3d at 1459–60. 

In its 2004 amendments to the 

Tunney Act, Congress made clear its 

intent to preserve the practical benefits 

of using judgments proposed by the 

United States in antitrust enforcement, 

Public Law 108–237 § 221, and added 

the unambiguous instruction that 

‘‘[n]othing in this section shall be 

construed to require the court to 

conduct an evidentiary hearing or to 

require the court to permit anyone to 

intervene.’’ 15 U.S.C. 16(e)(2); see also 

U.S. Airways, 38 F. Supp. 3d at 76 

(indicating that a court is not required 

to hold an evidentiary hearing or to 

permit intervenors as part of its review 

under the Tunney Act). This language 

explicitly wrote into the statute what 

Congress intended when it first enacted 

the Tunney Act in 1974. As Senator 

Tunney explained: ‘‘[t]he court is 

nowhere compelled to go to trial or to 

engage in extended proceedings which 

might have the effect of vitiating the 

benefits of prompt and less costly 

settlement through the consent decree 

process.’’ 119 Cong. Rec. 24,598 (1973) 

(statement of Sen. Tunney). ‘‘A court 

can make its public interest 

determination based on the competitive 

impact statement and response to public 

comments alone.’’ U.S. Airways, 38 F. 

Supp. 3d at 76 (citing Enova Corp., 107 

F. Supp. 2d at 17). 

VIII. Determinative Documents 

There are no determinative materials 

or documents within the meaning of the 

Tunney Act that were considered by the 

United States in formulating the 

proposed Final Judgment. 

Dated: November 17, 2023. 

Respectfully submitted, 

For Plaintiff, United States of America 

Jack G. Lerner, 

U.S. Department of Justice Antitrust Division, 

Civil Conduct Task Force, 450 Fifth Street 

NW, Suite 8600, Washington, DC 20530, Tel: 

202–227–9295, Fax: 202–616–2441, Email: 

jack.lerner@usdoj.gov. 

[FR Doc. 2023–26794 Filed 12–6–23; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–11–P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Notice of Lodging of Proposed 

Modification To Consent Decree Under 

the Clean Water Act 

On December 3, 2023, the Department 

of Justice lodged with the United States 

District Court for the Eastern District of 

Tennessee in the lawsuit entitled United 

States and the State of Tennessee v. The 

City of Chattanooga, Civil Action No. 

1:12–cv–00245, a proposed modification 

to the existing Consent Decree. 

The United States, on behalf of the 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

(‘‘EPA’’), and the State of Tennessee 

filed this lawsuit on July 17, 2012, 

under the Clean Water Act and 

Tennessee State law alleging violations 

with respect to the City of Chattanooga’s 

publicly owned treatment works. A 

Consent Decree resolving these claims 

was entered by the Court on April 24, 

2014. The proposed modification to the 

Consent Decree extends certain 

deadlines to achieve compliance with 

the Consent Decree while adding 

significant remedial projects that the 

city must complete in the next five 

years. The cost of the additional 

required projects is estimated to be $185 

million. 

The publication of this notice opens 

a period for public comment on the 

proposed modification to the Consent 

Decree. Comments should be addressed 

to the Assistant Attorney General, 

Environment and Natural Resources 

Division, and should refer to United 

States and the State of Tennessee v. The 

City of Chattanooga, D.J. Ref. No. 90–5– 

1–1–10145. All comments must be 

submitted no later than thirty (30) days 

after the publication date of this notice. 

Comments may be submitted either by 

email or by mail: 

To submit 

comments: Send them to: 

By email ....... pubcomment-ees.enrd@

usdoj.gov. 

By mail ......... Assistant Attorney General, 

U.S. DOJ—ENRD, P.O. 

Box 7611, Washington, DC 

20044–7611. 

During the public comment period, 

the Consent Decree may be examined 

and downloaded at this Justice 

Department website: https:// 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 234 / Thursday, December 7, 2023 / Notices 85327 

www.justice.gov/enrd/consent-decrees. 

We will provide a paper copy of the 

Consent Decree upon written request 

and payment of reproduction costs. 

Please mail your request and payment 

to: Consent Decree Library, U.S. DOJ— 

ENRD, P.O. Box 7611, Washington, DC 

20044–7611. 

Please enclose a check or money order 

for $40.25 (25 cents per page 

reproduction cost), payable to the 

United States Treasury. 

Lori Jonas, 

Assistant Section Chief, Environmental 

Enforcement Section, Environment & Natural 

Resources Division. 

[FR Doc. 2023–26889 Filed 12–6–23; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–15–P 

NATIONAL ARCHIVES AND RECORDS 

ADMINISTRATION 

[NARA–2024–006] 

Advisory Committee on the Records of 

Congress; Meeting 

AGENCY: National Archives and Records 

Administration (NARA). 

ACTION: Notice of Federal Advisory 

Committee meeting. 

SUMMARY: We are announcing an 

upcoming meeting of the Advisory 

Committee on the Records of Congress 

in accordance with the Federal 

Advisory Committee Act. The 

committee advises NARA on the full 

range of programs, policies, and plans 

for the Center for Legislative Archives in 

the Office of Legislative Archives, 

Presidential Libraries, and Museum 

Services (LPM). 

DATES: The meeting will be on 

December 11, 2023, from 10:15 a.m. to 

12 p.m. EST. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

James Wyatt, National Archives, Center 

for Legislative Archives, by email at 

James.Wyatt@nara.gov or by phone at 

202–357–5016. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This 

virtual meeting is open to the public in 

accordance with the Federal Advisory 

Committee Act (5 U.S.C. app 2) and 

implementing regulations. 

Meeting Information 

Meeting link: https://

senate.webex.com/senate/ 

j.php?MTID=m38e2fe7a06180

f990a755cfa41ede3c3. 

Meeting number: 2762 958 2435. 

Meeting password: SrM6Gavpw87. 

Join from a video or application: Dial 

27629582435@senate.webex.com. 

You can also dial 207.182.190.20 and 

enter your meeting number. 

Join by phone: +1 202–228–0808 US 

Senate Webex, +1 855–428–0808 US 

Senate Webex (Toll Free). 

Access code: 27629582435. 

Global call-in numbers: https:// 

senate.webex.com/senate/ 

globalcallin.php?MTID=mcf8e47615656

e2926077acf6cd6ff1d5. 

Agenda 

1. Opening Remarks—Ann Berry, 

Secretary of the Senate 

2. Recognition of Co-Chair—Kevin 

McCumber, Acting Clerk of the 

House 

3. Recognition of the Archivist of the 

United States—Colleen Shogan 

4. Approval of the Minutes of the Last 

Meeting 

5. Senate Archivist’s Report—Karen 

Paul 

6. House Archivist’s Report—Heather 

Bourk 

7. Center for Legislative Archives 

Report—Richard Hunt 

8. Advisory Committee on the Records 

of Congress Seventh Report—Karen 

Paul 

9. New Business 

10. Adjournment 

Tasha Ford, 

Committee Management Officer. 

[FR Doc. 2023–26849 Filed 12–6–23; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7515–01–P 

NATIONAL CREDIT UNION 

ADMINISTRATION 

Revisions of Agency Information 

Collection of a Previously Approved 

Collection; Request for Comments 

AGENCY: National Credit Union 

Administration (NCUA). 

ACTION: Notice of submission to the 

Office of Management and Budget. 

SUMMARY: As required by the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995, the National 

Credit Union Administration (NCUA) is 

submitting the following extensions and 

revisions of currently approved 

collections to the Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) for renewal. 

DATES: Written comments should be 

received on or before January 8, 2024 to 

be assured consideration. 

ADDRESSES: Written comments and 

recommendations for the proposed 

information collection should be sent 

within 30 days of publication of this 

notice to www.reginfo.gov/public/do/ 

PRAMain. Find this particular 

information collection by selecting 

‘‘Currently under 30-day Review—Open 

for Public Comments’’ or by using the 

search function. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Copies of the submission may be 

obtained by contacting Mahala Vixamar 

at (703) 718–1155, emailing 

PRAComments@ncua.gov, or viewing 

the entire information collection request 

at www.reginfo.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

OMB Number: 3133–0004. 

Title: NCUA Call Report. 

Type of Review: Revision of a 

currently approved collection. 

Abstract: Sections 106 and 202 of the 

Federal Credit Union Act require 

federally insured credit unions (FICUs) 

to make financial reports to the NCUA. 

Section 741.6 of the NCUA Rules and 

Regulations requires all FICUs to submit 

a Call Report quarterly. Financial 

information collected through the Call 

Report is essential to NCUA supervision 

of Federal credit unions. This 

information also facilitates NCUA 

monitoring of other credit unions with 

share accounts insured by the National 

Credit Union Share Insurance Fund 

(NCUSIF). 

Affected Public: Private Sector: Notfor-profit institutions. 

Estimated Number of Respondents: 

4,686. 

Estimated Number of Responses per 

Respondent: 4. 

Estimated Total Annual Responses: 

18,744. 

Estimated Hours per Response: 4. 

Estimated Total Annual Burden 

Hours: 74,976. 

Reason for Change: Burden decreased 

due to the number of respondents 

decreasing. 

OMB Number: 3133–0040. 

Title: Federal Credit Union 

Occupancy, Planning, and Disposal of 

Acquired and Abandoned Premises—12 

CFR 701.36. 

Type of Review: Revision of a 

currently approved collection. 

Abstract: Section 107(4) of the Federal 

Credit Union Act authorizes a Federal 

credit union (FCU) to purchase, hold, 

and dispose of property necessary or 

incidental to its operations. Section 

701.36 of NCUA Rules and Regulations 

interprets and implements this 

provision of the FCU Act by establishing 

occupancy, planning, and disposal 

requirements for acquired and 

abandoned premises. It also prohibits 

certain transactions. In addition, this 

section includes provisions in which an 

FCU may seek a waiver from certain 

requirements of the rule. NCUA reviews 

written waiver requests and makes a 

determination on the request based on 

safety and soundness considerations. 

Affected Public: Private Sector: Notfor-profit institutions. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1